Imagine that. Someone other than a blogger, a Muslim, or a Calvinist, has actually called for Caner to personally explain his "misstatements".

What is funny about this: Harvest House has published at least two Geisler books! How can this be? Did not Geisler educate his publisher, letting them know that Caner has been exonerated, and has already apologized? Do they not know that these calls for Caner to explain himself are playing right into the hands of Satan, having their roots in a lying Muslim and a Phoenix-based heretical Calvinist?

Someone please call Tim Guthrie, Tim Rogers, Peter Lumpkins, Norman Geisler and Volfan of the SBC Today Bunch: they need to start a letter writing campaign to Harvest House and their outlets explaining that Caner HAS ALREADY apologized, and that he has been exonerated by Liberty! Why, Caner might not have even been demoted, he may have chosen himself to not stay on as president!

Countdown to an SBC Harvest House boycott has begun! Our SBC Executive Committee needs to get on the case!

Memo to Thom Rainer of Lifeway: PULL ALL THE HARVEST HOUSE BOOKS FROM THE LIFEWAY SHELVES! They don't agree that Caner is exonerated and they dare to call for Caner to explain his misstatements!

Seriously, bravo to Harvest House Publishers, who published Caner's book "Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics" coauthored with Ed Hindson in 2008. Harvest House has also published three titles for Caner's brother Emir.

Here is the Harvest House statement:

"We are saddened by the controversy that has risen as a result of the self-contradictory statements made by Ergun Caner over the years. And, we are concerned that the allegations surrounding his statements have not yet been adequately addressed by him, and we are hopeful that he will personally respond to them soon."

Yes, "over the years". Like almost 9 years. Seeing as they have taken their time in responding, it is safe to assume that Harvest House has looked very carefully at this issue, and they "ARE CONCERNED". Notice, they have not said their author is exonerated. No, they have concluded, unlike the Caner Keystone Cops, that he has yet to address these misstatements, and THAT HE OWES THEM AN EXPLANATION.

Indeed. Thank you Harvest House. A voice of reason in the madness.

Now, for the other publishers: Kregel Publications has apparently drunk the Kaner Kool-Aid, and they have trumpeted the same defense of Caner as Geisler and Friends. The B&H Publishing Group has not yet made a statement about the Caner controversy. B&H published Caner's book "Why Churches Die", coauthored with FBC Jax's Mac Brunson back in 2005. Brunson mentioned from his pulpit in 2009 that he was working with Caner on a revised version...this may be delayed, as the authors perhaps are considering a complete rewrite, given the Caner and Brunson experiences over the past year or so. Lots of new experiences to write about when it comes to controversies in the church - especially how to deal with pesky bloggers, Muslims, and Calvinists in the church. :)

Stay tuned for Geisler's rebuttal to the Harvest House statement. Anyone want to help Geisler write his rebuttal to HH in the comment section of this post?

69 comments:

HQ
said...

Honest Question...

Is there support in scripture for anyone who has been exposed for wrong in scripture (like Peter / Paul) who either was called to repent publicly, answer the questions or accusations publicly or give any type of public response?

Honest Question,Are you trying to say that you think Peter didn't repent and change what he was doing after Paul called him on his hypocrisy, but instead Peter continued in that sin? Does that seem in keeping with Peter's character after the resurrection of Christ?

But if Peter did repent when Paul confronted him over his sin, wouldn't his repentance have been obvious, in that he would have humbled himself before those whom he had offended, admitted his wrong, and changed his behavior?

It doesn't seem reasonable that Peter, after such a public confrontation, would not have changed his actions. Not does it seem reasonable that he would have changed his actions, but never said anything to acknowledge that he was wrong -- that would have left those whom he had offended to wonder whether he changed his actions because Paul fussed at him or because he recognized he was wrong and was genuinely sorry for it.

Instead of looking for a proof text, look at it like this -- given the whole counsel of Scripture, what do you think a person should do when they have publicly sinned against others?

My thinking is when Paul confronted Peter, Peter being Spirit sensitive, would have been convicted on the spot [by The Holy Spirit] and he would have been sorrowful for what he did or making others do based on his erroneous beliefs and reasonings.

I will boycott Harvest House for their unscriptural approach towards Dr. Caner. What a bunch of hypocrites to pile on a Brother when he has clearly apologized and has been under the authority of Liberty. Now all we need to do is break out the wood and the nails and hear Harvest House go from "Hail Him, Hail Him" to "Nail Him, Nail Him"

CRBC Pastoral Blog [Tom Chantry] > Enough with the Trees Already!As the weeks go by and Ergun Caner's defenders try to run out the clock (sooner or later everyone must lose interest, right?), they have largely been employing a similar tree-by-tree strategy. For months Caner's accusers have been breaking down his mythical persona into its component parts (national origin, upbringing, Jihad training, debate prowess, etc.) and documenting each part. The wide ranging accusations against Caner have provided his defenders with a choice of where and how they will defend him, and they are choosing well.

A Squirrel in Babylon [Gene Clyatt] > “Veritas” Means “Правда”Правда (pravda) is the Russian word for "truth." Pravda was also the name of the official newspaper of the Soviet Communist Party from 1918 until the party was shut down in 1991 by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Throughout the Soviet era, Pravda was where official policy and policy changes were announced to the world. What the Party spoke, Pravda printed.

Wow. Anonymous 1, watch your language. That's the worst language I've ever seen on a Christian blog. That's right - the very worst. Or on any blog ever, for that matter. If you don't know why, begin to pray.

Anon No 1. Have you failed to read I and II Peter. He drives home all areas of repentance. He warns of false teachers and covetousness and those that enter into damnation. He speaks of those that walk after the flesh (he was ready to use the sword and Jesus told him to put it away). John writes in John 18 he describes Peter denying fellowship with Jesus while in Luke 22 vs 62 Peter wept bitterly (repentance). He emphasizes the wisdom of Paul in entire gospel of Paul and more importantly suggest in II Peter 3:15 "beloved brother Paul". If that isn't repentance you will never find it. Lastly, when Jesus appeared to them all on the sea shore he told Peter to feed the sheep. If Jesus accepted Peters repentance who are we to deny it?

Enough already with repentance and apologizing!! I am tired of phonies, in the church and in everyday life. One SHOULD be able to see the difference. That's why I am no longer in church.

July 15, 2010 11:13 AM

Good example of "Why Churches Die" - and the reason why a lot of BELIEVERS have left the Country Club Mega Churches. Don't believe Brunson & Caner had a chapter in their book addressing these feelings. :>) Publishers need to drop that phony book as well!

I believe Peter repented. I honestly want to make a biblical case that such a repentance after a public exposer was done publicly.

I can not take your position to look at the whole counsel of God and make a firm stance when scripture does not speak directly to this subject, since a public exposure of sin was done.

I am under the impression that Caner has repented, and as with Peter (which we notice in scripture in his changed position), we will see from Caner. Watch closely, I think that is the best way to approach this biblically.

Again, is there biblical precedence for a public apology after a public rebuke?

I hope I am not asking for too much. I honestly want to back up what some are demanding from Caner, biblically? If it is there, I will call for it also.

HQ,I appreciate where you are coming from, as it is good to desire a biblical basis for our behavior and for that which we expect of others. But there is more to having a biblical basis for something than just specific commands and examples from Scripture. You are right that we can't point to a passage and say that it specifically requires a public apology for a public sin. But that's where wisdom and discernment from the Holy Spirit come in.

In many (most, actually) areas of life we must apply the general principles of Scripture to specific situations where the Scripture does not provide detailed instruction. James tells us that if we lack wisdom (e.g., we don't know how to apply God's Word to a situation) we should ask God for wisdom and He will give it.

If someone has sinned against someone else privately and individually, is that person required by Scripture to go to the person they sinned against and to ask for forgiveness? Matt 18 tells the one who is offended to go to the one who offended them, but it doesn't tell the one who did wrong to initiate an apology. So I guess that, technically, you could say that in such a situation, the sinner has no obligation to ask the one they sinned against for forgiveness unless an apology is first requested. But that seems like placing adherence to the letter of the Word over following the Spirit of it.

Likewise, it just makes common sense that a person who has done wrong in a public setting needs to publicly address it. We can't see into someone's heart to see if their repentance is genuine; we can only see their actions. And if their actions change, but not a word is spoken to address their former actions, then one would never know if they were really repentant or just being careful not to get caught again.

Thus, the question remains, given the whole counsel of Scripture, what do you think a person should do when they have publicly sinned against others?

All I'm saying is to approach this with some common sense, sensitivity to the Spirit, and godly wisdom, and the answers of what should be done in a situation like this will become clear.

Now, the question is, How does this mess and others like it begin to get cleaned up?

The Brunson, Gaines, Everson's et all, those within the Baptist Mafia, and their disciples have no clue or idea the destruction and harm they have done to the cause of Christ or families because of their continued abominations to Christ teachings.

If they only knew......

And just think, a simple BIBLICAL commandment or an apology could have remedied much debate and changed many lives for the better....

They have NO idea......no clue whatsoever what they have done - an the saddest part is that they probably DO NOT EVEN CARE!"

"I support Caner proceeding in ministry until he has proven he has not been broken and forgiven."

TIME FOR CANER TO TAKE A LEAVE - I FOR ONE DO NOT WANT PEOPLE IN THE PULPIT OR TEACHING MY KIDS WITH GARBAGE GOING ON LIKE HE HAS BROUGHT ABOUT HIMSELF - HE IS NOT FIT TO SERVE IN THE MINISTRY. HE CAN JOIN THE LAY PEOPLE & SERVE IN ANOTHER WAY - HE HAS LOST HIS ABILITY IN THE AREA OF RESPECT & NEEDS TO HUMBLE HIMSELF & STEP DOWN.

Herein lies where I struggle and will probably disagree with what you stated.

"But that seems like placing adherence to the letter of the Word over following the Spirit of it."

I am not sure I can say when the Spirit of the Word will lead to a decision not supported by the word. You may be correct but it does not connect with me.

For me, Matthew 18 is out since there is no local church to discipline. Yet, if we do take the Spirit of the word over the letter of the word (I hope I am not distorting what you said), then the Spirit would lead the one offended to do what the word specifically says, not otherwise. That may not make much sense in type, but I understand me.

Taking the whole council of scripture into account, I find no support for a repentant person to have to bow to the whims of anyone calling for them to seek their forgiveness. I might be able to make a case for those who demand an apology are out of line and might need to apologize also.

Going back to Peter, He did not say for Peter to repent publicly but that Peter was wrong and for the people to know the truth. In saying that, it spoke to Peters heart at some point. I don't think Paul was wanting a lynch mob to go after Peter. I don't think he would do that today if he were a blogger. He would expose and leave the rest up to the work of God in the accused's heart and life.

I have no reason to not think Caner is not sorrowful or grief ridden. To claim such would be dishonest because I do not know. Do you?

I honestly do not think Ergun Caner is sorrowful. Here is why ...

The same week LU investigative committee being led by Ron Godwin released their findings (as in one paragraph), Ergun Caner at the start of that week, in a class of Theology (101 ?) to students was proclaiming his innocence.

Within the first 20 minutes of class Ergun is chatting about the accusations against him, but he made it clear that he isn't worrying about the issue or looking in to it...yet he gave my class an explanation, which I was extremely grateful for since for the next 4 days he would teach me a basis of theology that I would use throughout the rest of my academic life. If you're interested I have 7 minutes of his innocence recorded on my cell phone. *(I have recently been contacted about this media clip via blog comments, and let me make it clear that I will not be giving out any information).

At this point, there is little anyone can do to help Ergun Caner. I mean to help really. As in being sorrowful and repentance. The only benefit is if Ergun Caner did indeed repent, he would not be enlisting his brother and friends to still stonewall and buttress him.

I soon expect Ergun Caner to go back in to the preaching evangelistic circuit across SBC churches. This is how SBC leaders protect one of their own. They ignore truth and promote their man.

My thinking is all it does it build up a man on the outside while his insides are being rotten. It does not have to be this way. I would encourage Ergun Caner to practice some of what he preaches of The Gospel.

"TIME FOR CANER TO TAKE A LEAVE - I FOR ONE DO NOT WANT PEOPLE IN THE PULPIT OR TEACHING MY KIDS WITH GARBAGE GOING ON LIKE HE HAS BROUGHT ABOUT HIMSELF - HE IS NOT FIT TO SERVE IN THE MINISTRY. HE CAN JOIN THE LAY PEOPLE & SERVE IN ANOTHER WAY - HE HAS LOST HIS ABILITY IN THE AREA OF RESPECT & NEEDS TO HUMBLE HIMSELF & STEP DOWN."

The link you give is dated the 21st. The news of Caners demotion came on the 25th. I can not say what transpired in those four days. If you can show something where Caner claimed innocence after the 25th, I'd like to see that source.

Until then, speculation at best.

Peter went on preaching. If Caner is repentant, then let him preach the gospel, we don't need reduced numbers. I think any sane person will know he won't be fabricating his story any more.

HQ,I appreciate the spirit of your responses, also. I just see it like this -- absent a clear, direct, specific command or example from Scripture, we are left to use wisdom, discernment, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit in how we are to respond to specific situations. While I cannot point to a passage that says a person who is called to repent publicly must give a public response, neither can you point to one that says it is always wrong for others to ask for or expect a public response in such a situation.

So, if it satisfies you not to hear a public response or apology from Caner, and you are willing to wait and see by his future behavior of his repentance is genuine, you are not violating any specific commands of Scripture. Some might question the wisdom of trusting a man and his preaching when he has yet to provide a public demonstration of repentance, but we each have to make our own decisions about that.

But if your approach does not satisfy others, and they desire and expect a public apology from Caner, they are not violating any specific commands of Scripture, either. They may feel that it is more wise not to trust him or his preaching absent an appropriate demonstration of repentance.

Going back to Peter, it seems likely to us both that Peter repented of his hypocrisy, which would have meant a change of behavior that was visible to all. But, just as that is speculation, we can only speculate what more Paul would have said or done if Peter had not repented. For that matter, we can't be sure how many times Paul repeated his appeal to Peter before Peter did repent.

My point is that we ought not to spend too much time arguing from the silence of Scripture to say what one should or shouldn't do. Rather, I think we should look for the principles in the heart and mind of God as revealed in Scripture and in the life and work of Christ. Your desire to see people treated fairly and with compassion, even when they have sinned, is part of the heart of God. But so is the desire of others to see the name of Christ honored in the holiness and the purity of the church and in ministers of the gospel. There's a tension there, as there always is in trying to balance being gracious to our fellow believers with expecting holiness from them. So each has to follow his own conscience. If yours leads you to say nothing more about Caner and to expect nothing more from him, that's fine and scriptural. But it's just as fine and scriptural for others to have a different reaction.

"I believe there is a lot of scripture to cover most of the majority of "opinions" expressed on this blog just as you are expressing your personal opinion defending Caner."

I find this interesting. I make no judgment about Caner, pro or con. I ask a question which I was seeking biblical confirmation and I am accused of defending Caner.

I have admitted that I have given only my 2 cents worth of opinion and used scripture to support such. How does that make me a Caner defender? Is it that anyone who has an opinion different than you is defending Caner? If so, that is very sad.

I asked an honest question and Junkster has graciously interchanged with me. No hostility, name calling or side taking, until now.

I am not trying to change anyones mind. I have no dog in this hunt. I was honestly seeking thought on a certain view point. You gave a well reasoned response with something to ponder. I'm willing to wrestle with it. I would hope that everyone else whose opinion is opposite mine might wrestle with it also.

Each differing thought being prayerfully wrestled with might show us all something, regardless of what Caner does.

Also, for me, I do not want to waste my mental energies calling for an apology I probably will not get or my time waiting for a certain behavior to be demonstrated. There are better things in His kingdom for me to walk with and through each day.

Welcome to our crowd HQ as we have asked for scriptural answers to questions with no response.

We're not purposely wanting to hurt anyone but many of us have watched ministers molest our children, have affairs, divorce their wives, closet alcoholics - none which confessed their sins until they were caught.

Forgiving these individuals yes, but keeping them in the ministry is not good wisdom - henceforth these people will always be a distraction to the mission of the church.

You sound like someone with the gift of compassion - as I said, welcome to the WD debate club - we're really for the most part, good people.

"You sound like someone with the gift of compassion - as I said, welcome to the WD debate club - we're really for the most part, good people."

Anon,

Thank you for your kind response. I need to ignore those who who choose to make any discussion so personal they can't discuss things rationally. I believe there are only a few who can't but, for me, I too easily take it personal and withdraw.

I don't want to be a bully and don't want to be bullied. I would really like to discuss these things in a manner which is gracious and spiritually healthy, regardless if we agree or not.

"I have admitted that I have given only my 2 cents worth of opinion and used scripture to support such. How does that make me a Caner defender? Is it that anyone who has an opinion different than you is defending Caner? If so, that is very sad."

You comment in response to Thy Peaces link sends a message that you are basing your opinion about Caner on some technicalities. Some of us find that straining at gnats and swallowing an elephant.

The whole Caner scandal belies strange behavior for "Christians" from Elmer Towns first public response (It is not a moral or ethical issue and we give theological leverage to ministers) to Liberty's bizarre response and decision to investigate because "major media" started asking questions to Caner putting up a vague explanation and then taking it down very quickly to absolutely no explanation from Caner himself...including setting the record straight about his bio.

If this is considered the normal behavior of Christian Leaders, then we have a serious problem in Christendom.

So, it is hard to understand where you are coming from. You compare Caner to Peter eating with Jews. Ok. But Caner lied over a 9 year span and profited off those lies. Scripture is clear that unrepentant liars are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 21 is talking to professed believers).

HQ wrote, "Is there support in scripture for anyone who has been exposed for wrong in scripture (like Peter / Paul) who either was called to repent publicly, answer the questions or accusations publicly or give any type of public response?"

HQ, you say "anyone," not 'any believer,' and Paul did insist that the [pagan] government authorities who had wrongly imprisoned him publicly escort him out of jail: "So the keeper of the prison reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go. Now therefore depart, and go in peace.”But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out.” (Acts 16:36-37).

As to believers, James says, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." (James 5:16). Confessing your faults "one to another" couldn't be altogether private.

HQ, another point to bear in mind is that apology must be made to the wronged party: "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison." (Matthew 5:23-25). If the wronged party is John Q. Public, a large crowd of anonymous pew-sitters who were flim-flammed, then it is hard to see how apology could be made privately.

Waaaa...mean ol' Caner made up a story about being a muslim...Waaaa....it offended me.....Waaaaa....he needs to be punished...Waaaa

GROW UP!!! THE MAN IS HUMAN...ARE YOU? HAVE YOU EVER MADE A STUPID MISTAKE? QUIT BEING SO SENSITIVE AND REALIZE THAT EVERYONE DOES NOT OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION. WE HAVE BECOME SUCH A BUNCH OF WHINERS THAT WE GET OUR SPIRITUAL BRITCHES IN A WAD WHEN SOME CHRISTIAN MESSES UP. GET A LIFE!!!!

How about taking Job as an example of a public confession. His three friends were in the wrong rather than he. God made them apologize and had them forgiven through Job. Are we getting close now? Job 42 vs. 7-10.

Dr. Caner NEVER tried to cover up anything he did. NEVER did he say to Focus on the Family "don't broadcast my messages on your show." NEVER did he try to sell books, tapes, or gain monetarily. NEVER has he attempted to sue for libel those who are trying to ruin his character. NEVER WILL HE LET THE DEVIL KEEP HIM FROM PREACHING THE GOOD NEWS!!!

I had a dream last night. The SBC merged with the Catholics and Father Caner gave the Mass in Arabic. He told us that he used to be in Jihad against the Calvinist until he finally wrapped that collar on backwards and suddenly he saw the light. I dreamed that Mac served us RC's and Moonpies for communion and that he raised money for the next building project by having a BINGO parlor. i dreamed that we would all get a sense of humor and stop being so dreary and condemning and start being more like JESUS!YOU WON'T PRINT THIS BECAUSE IT WILL CAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE LIKE SHAKESPEARE...ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT CANER AND MAC..."much ado about nothing"

Harvest House has a lot of nerve!! This is a joke People!! Caner was giving us a NARRATIVE of what could have been. Have your have ever taught Sunday School and shared a story that was fiction but was told as a parable? That's all he did! Come on, he knew, we knew, Harvest House knew that he was speaking in a modern day parable!This is all a smokescreen to advance the Islamic reign in the US!All thru the Bible you see people sharing dreams! That's all he was doing was sharing a dream he had...a dream of what could have been a reality. If you don't get it, you have your head in the sand!

It is not about 'misstatements' or simply Caner's confusion about past chronology of events. It is clearly (at least to me) a case of rhetoric, hyperbole, and emotions being used to draw in and then persuade listeners to adopt his posture concerning muslims. Few facts about Islam are used in context and the emotive message transcends what could have been helpful bridge-building information. (I am a Christian living in a muslim country). I commend Harvest House for taking steps to be wise, professional, and above reproach.

"For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."

Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes."

You can only repair the Ship of Churchianity for so long. Eventually it has to be abandoned.

Enough of this business in Christian clothing! Let's start over, from the New Testament, and live the Christian life.

We are the salt of the earth. Have you ever picked up your food and dipped it into a bowl of salt? Of course not. Salt is to be sprinkled over the food and mixed it.

When we think that evangelism means bringing the lost to the church, we are dipping food in salt. But when we take Jesus with us 24/7 and live the Spirit-filled life, we "mix in" and "flavor" the world.

Sure, we need to meet together to "build each other up", but how much "each other" happens in a worship service? We are spectators for the most part. And that is the game, the business, that we pay for and reap the harvest of.

The System is the problem, and until we rid ourselves of this, it will always be with us like a ball and chain. Christianity can be practiced within it, and God can work around it, but we will never be the society-changing force we were meant to be while we cling to clubs and businesses that substitute for individual responsibility.

"When we think that evangelism means bringing the lost to the church, we are dipping food in salt. But when we take Jesus with us 24/7 and live the Spirit-filled life, we "mix in" and "flavor" the world. "

Amen, Amen, Amen but we have been doing the opposite. We think inviting someone to church will lead them to get saved. But all we are doing is bringing unbelievers in to join a club and wear Christian makeup.

"Sure, we need to meet together to "build each other up", but how much "each other" happens in a worship service? We are spectators for the most part. And that is the game, the business, that we pay for and reap the harvest of."

Exactly!

"The System is the problem, and until we rid ourselves of this, it will always be with us like a ball and chain. "

The problem is that most people in the pews think the SYSTEM IS CHRISTIANITY. They feel 'holy' for being a part of the system.

They need to go back to square one and ask themselves what it means to follow Christ.

Anonymous wrote, "How about taking Job as an example of a public confession." Another OT example, Joseph's brothers apologized to him visibly, openly and publicly: "And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we be thy servants." (Genesis 50:18). God engineered this situation and its outcome: "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good... (Genesis 50:20). God had promised this before in a dream. (Genesis 37:9).

"If the wronged party is John Q. Public, a large crowd of anonymous pew-sitters who were flim-flammed, then it is hard to see how apology could be made privately."

Do we demand an apology from any and all who offend us?

The verse you use would mean that those who offended you would need to recognize their offense towards you. I am wandering if it is possible that Caner thinks his offense was against God.

I've heard Caner and his stories. I don't believe I was wronged. I lost nothing by his choices. I believe He is a hurting man who needs my forgiveness (even if he doesn't ask), not my fists. I must remember he is a brother in Christ. He is not the enemy. I have been down that road and it did me no good to carry such a load of bitterness and anger. I since have made the choice to travel a different road.

I just sat down and opened my bible. I was looking for a specific passage but noticed I opened my bible to the Lord's Prayer.

Our Father, who art in heaven,hallowed be thy name.Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heavenGive us this day our daily bread.And forgive us our trespasses,as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom,the power and the glory,for ever and ever.

I am moved by the idea that Jesus teaches us that regardless is one seeks forgiveness, we are to be a forgiving people.

HQ wrote, "I am wandering if it is possible that Caner thinks his offense was against God."

HQ, if he realizes that much, it's a big step forward. But lying is not a victimless crime. Unless no one believes the fabulist's tall tales, then there is an offended party, the sucker who believed what the fabulist told him, whether it was about a used car or a childhood spent training for jihad in Turkey. When Zacchaeus repented, he did not just say, 'My offense was against God, this is between me and Him,' he made restitution to those he had wronged: "And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." (Luke 19:8). I'm not personally demanding an apology from EC, because when I first became aware of these stories, I was also aware there were questions about them; I was never taken in! He owes me nothing. But lots of people were, and they deserve an apology. The way I see it there are two offended groups: the gullible people in the pews, he owes them an apology, plus the people he's telling tales about, Turks and "mutant grand-daughters." I agree we should pray for forgiveness and restoration for EC, but I think it would be a helpful part of that process if he became aware he did something wrong.

Dr. Lindsay preached a lot about people getting away from God and getting in the world. But, one of his greatest fears that he fought against, was the world getting into the church. I feel he would be extremely sad today if he were here.

Regarding the latter, Liberty students aren’t finding Ergun Caner on the course registry for next fall. See here and here. Therefore, while Caner is no longer the Dean of Liberty University and yet re-hired as a “professor,” he (evidently) won’t be teaching! Many are trying to contact the University Registrar to see if this is true. But, of course, they aren’t returning calls.

Watchdog - here is a good verse that should be headlining your blog instead of the one you do have. It is for Mac and A.C. Soud and the bulldog in lipstick:

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, LEST YOUR ADVERSARY DELIVER YOU TO THE JUDGE, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison." (Matthew 5:23-25).

"I am moved by the idea that Jesus teaches us that regardless is one seeks forgiveness, we are to be a forgiving people."

I do not understand what you think OUR forgiveness of Caner will do for him?

Does our forgiveness exonerate the lies he insists he did not tell for 9 years to thousands? Is that how you think it works?

We can forgive people and we SHOULD forgive people but that has nothing to do with their own standing before God. And forgiveness does not mean you ignore lying or any other unrepentant sin. Of course, I realize you are not taught any of this and probably do not understand that forgiveness does not mean reconciliation or even fellowship if the person is unrepentent.

BTW: When it comes to Caner, what do you do with 1 Tim 3? Ignore that, too?

"I do not understand what you think OUR forgiveness of Caner will do for him? "

For me, its not about what it will do for him but what it does for me and my relationship with God.

"Of course, I realize you are not taught any of this and probably do not understand that forgiveness does not mean reconciliation or even fellowship if the person is unrepentent."

Why make such accusations concerning me? I am not your enemy. I am not trying to have my way in this conversation. I am trying to converse in an adult manner yet you want to claim you know what I have been taught. Why is this?

I don't mind people being anonymous but if anyone would rather be obstinate and not carry on a civilized conversation, I will not participate in such behavior. I find it too easy for me to join the chatter and not be constructive so it is better for me to ignore.

"I don't have all the answers and a healthy discussion can be beneficial to all of us. Anyone want to be involved in such?"

Sorry, but your questions are "leading" and therefore obvious. If you really want a healthy discussion then try asking why Paul wrote 1 Corin 5 or John wrote, Revelation 21. Or what is the message of ALL of 1 John. Or what does Hebrews 10:26-31 mean in light of this scandal. There are more but why not start with those.

"Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."

I have reread my posts and can not find where I am against a rebuke. I agree wholeheartedly that one of the benefits of such action is to be a warning to others.

I do wonder though if the rebuke has been done by meaningful Christians, the media and other venues to a level where it has become nauseating instead of beneficial? Watching closely of future behavior and rebuking where it shows its ugly head again may be a correct way to start dealing with this subject.

I have disciplined my kids and walked away wondering if they really understood the wrong they had done. What I did not do was constantly harp on the wrong. I did watch closely their behavior and if they did wrong again, the discipline intensified from the original action.

I am not sure I agree that one who gets double honor should get double shame. I don't see scriptural support for such action.

"Neither is he to be retained as a Christian leader. "

I disagree. Paul did not work to keep Peter out of the ministry. They worked together after the rebuke (not immediately).

Thanks for your adult way of communicating? Tough questions are fair, mean spiritedness is worthy of bypassing. I have bypassed a few anonymous posts which, to me, seemed caustic.

"If you really want a healthy discussion then try asking why Paul wrote 1 Corin 5 or John wrote, Revelation 21. Or what is the message of ALL of 1 John. Or what does Hebrews 10:26-31 mean in light of this scandal. There are more but why not start with those"

I have reread my posts and can not find where I am against a rebuke. I agree wholeheartedly that one of the benefits of such action is to be a warning to others.

I was just quoting scripture on how we should deal with sinning elders.

I do wonder though if the rebuke has been done by meaningful Christians, the media and other venues to a level where it has become nauseating instead of beneficial? Watching closely of future behavior and rebuking where it shows its ugly head again may be a correct way to start dealing with this subject.

This would only be true if the one being rebuked has repented. But if the elder doesn't even admit to having sinned, how can they repent? Such an elder cannot be allowed to continue as such until there is an admission of sin (not mere "misspeaking") and then both a stated resolve to and observed compliance with not repeating the sin.

I have disciplined my kids and walked away wondering if they really understood the wrong they had done. What I did not do was constantly harp on the wrong. I did watch closely their behavior and if they did wrong again, the discipline intensified from the original action.

Children are not fully developed, which is why they need parents. But we are not talking about children here, nor even most adults, but an elder. Paul clearly orders more strictness with elders.

I am not sure I agree that one who gets double honor should get double shame. I don't see scriptural support for such action.

The passage I quoted makes it very clear. Paul talks about the fact that an elder cannot be lightly charged, but then follows with the guilty one being held up as a public example and warning, with an injunction to Timothy not to show favoritism. That is the context and the clear teaching.

I disagree. Paul did not work to keep Peter out of the ministry. They worked together after the rebuke (not immediately).

While we have no record of Peter repenting, we also have no record that he made excuses. Likewise, King David repented in bitter tears when Nathan confronted him. David was allowed to continue but would suffer much in consequence. Where is Caner's bitter brokenness and sorrow for having lied, and for so long? He has yet to even admit his sin but only makes excuses.

Thanks for your adult way of communicating? Tough questions are fair, mean spiritedness is worthy of bypassing. I have bypassed a few anonymous posts which, to me, seemed caustic.

You're very welcome. But I also think many people are too thin-skinned and take offense at any little thing. "Caustic" is in the eye of the beholder. If we really want to be better than the heathen (re. Jesus' statements about "even the heathen do that"), we should strive to ignore what we personally consider caustic and just focus on the point being made. Or as Paul put it, "Why not rather be wronged?" Let people talk; let God judge their attitudes. But things like open and unrepentant sin cannot be left to God, for we have been commanded to keep the Body pure and administer discipline for the protection of the fellowship.

I have reread my posts and can not find where I am against a rebuke. I agree wholeheartedly that one of the benefits of such action is to be a warning to others.

I was just quoting scripture on how we should deal with sinning elders.

I do wonder though if the rebuke has been done by meaningful Christians, the media and other venues to a level where it has become nauseating instead of beneficial? Watching closely of future behavior and rebuking where it shows its ugly head again may be a correct way to start dealing with this subject.

This would only be true if the one being rebuked has repented. But if the elder doesn't even admit to having sinned, how can they repent? Such an elder cannot be allowed to continue as such until there is an admission of sin (not mere "misspeaking") and then both a stated resolve to and observed compliance with not repeating the sin.

I have disciplined my kids and walked away wondering if they really understood the wrong they had done. What I did not do was constantly harp on the wrong. I did watch closely their behavior and if they did wrong again, the discipline intensified from the original action.

Children are not fully developed, which is why they need parents. But we are not talking about children here, nor even most adults, but an elder. Paul clearly orders more strictness with elders.

I am not sure I agree that one who gets double honor should get double shame. I don't see scriptural support for such action.

The passage I quoted makes it very clear. Paul talks about the fact that an elder cannot be lightly charged, but then follows with the guilty one being held up as a public example and warning, with an injunction to Timothy not to show favoritism. That is the context and the clear teaching.

I disagree. Paul did not work to keep Peter out of the ministry. They worked together after the rebuke (not immediately).

While we have no record of Peter repenting, we also have no record that he made excuses. Likewise, King David repented in bitter tears when Nathan confronted him. David was allowed to continue but would suffer much in consequence. Where is Caner's bitter brokenness and sorrow for having lied, and for so long? He has yet to even admit his sin but only makes excuses.

Thanks for your adult way of communicating? Tough questions are fair, mean spiritedness is worthy of bypassing. I have bypassed a few anonymous posts which, to me, seemed caustic.

You're very welcome. But I also think many people are too thin-skinned and take offense at any little thing. "Caustic" is in the eye of the beholder. If we really want to be better than the heathen (re. Jesus' statements about "even the heathen do that"), we should strive to ignore what we personally consider caustic and just focus on the point being made. Or as Paul put it, "Why not rather be wronged?" Let people talk; let God judge their attitudes. But things like open and unrepentant sin cannot be left to God, for we have been commanded to keep the Body pure and administer discipline for the protection of the fellowship.

I was just quoting scripture on how we should deal with sinning elders.

I do wonder though if the rebuke has ... become nauseating instead of beneficial?

This would only be true if the one being rebuked has repented. But if the elder doesn't even admit to having sinned, how can they repent? Such an elder cannot be allowed to continue as such until there is an admission of sin (not mere "misspeaking") and then both a stated resolve to and observed compliance with not repeating the sin.

I have disciplined my kids...

Children are not fully developed, which is why they need parents. But we are not talking about children here, nor even most adults, but an elder. Paul clearly orders more strictness with elders.

I am not sure I agree that one who gets double honor should get double shame. I don't see scriptural support for such action.

The passage I quoted makes it very clear. Paul talks about the fact that an elder cannot be lightly charged, but then follows with the guilty one being held up as a public example and warning, with an injunction to Timothy not to show favoritism. That is the context and the clear teaching.

I disagree. Paul did not work to keep Peter out of the ministry....

While we have no record of Peter repenting, we also have no record that he made excuses. Likewise, King David repented in bitter tears when Nathan confronted him. David was allowed to continue but would suffer much in consequence. Where is Caner's bitter brokenness and sorrow for having lied, and for so long? He has yet to even admit his sin but only makes excuses.

Thanks for your adult way of communicating... I have bypassed a few anonymous posts which, to me, seemed caustic.

You're very welcome. But I also think many people are too thin-skinned and take offense at any little thing. "Caustic" is in the eye of the beholder. If we really want to be better than the heathen (re. Jesus' statements about "even the heathen do that"), we should strive to ignore what we personally consider caustic and just focus on the point being made. Or as Paul put it, "Why not rather be wronged?" Let people talk; let God judge their attitudes. But things like open and unrepentant sin cannot be left to God, for we have been commanded to keep the Body pure and administer discipline for the protection of the fellowship.

While we have no record of Peter repenting, we also have no record that he made excuses. Likewise, King David repented in bitter tears when Nathan confronted him. David was allowed to continue but would suffer much in consequence. Where is Caner's bitter brokenness and sorrow for having lied, and for so long? He has yet to even admit his sin but only makes excuses.

Thanks for your adult way of communicating... I have bypassed a few anonymous posts which, to me, seemed caustic.

You're very welcome. But I also think many people are too thin-skinned and take offense at any little thing. "Caustic" is in the eye of the beholder. If we really want to be better than the heathen (re. Jesus' statements about "even the heathen do that"), we should strive to ignore what we personally consider caustic and just focus on the point being made. Or as Paul put it, "Why not rather be wronged?" Let people talk; let God judge their attitudes. But things like open and unrepentant sin cannot be left to God, for we have been commanded to keep the Body pure and administer discipline for the protection of the fellowship.

I was just quoting scripture on how we should deal with sinning elders.

I do wonder though if the rebuke has ... become nauseating instead of beneficial?

This would only be true if the one being rebuked has repented. But if the elder doesn't even admit to having sinned, how can they repent? Such an elder cannot be allowed to continue as such until there is an admission of sin (not mere "misspeaking") and then both a stated resolve to and observed compliance with not repeating the sin.

I have disciplined my kids...

Children are not fully developed, which is why they need parents. But we are not talking about children here, nor even most adults, but an elder. Paul clearly orders more strictness with elders.

I am not sure I agree that one who gets double honor should get double shame. I don't see scriptural support for such action.

The passage I quoted makes it very clear. Paul talks about the fact that an elder cannot be lightly charged, but then follows with the guilty one being held up as a public example and warning, with an injunction to Timothy not to show favoritism. That is the context and the clear teaching.

1. You made the comment about "double shame". I asked what you meant by it. In the context of this issue, of course.

Actually Paula made the comment. I said I am not sure if I agree. I asked "what question" to you due to the fact you cut and pasted my comment to Paula concerning it.

Sorry, I can't give you an answer as to why the term was used originally.

2. Non teachers of the Word. And by whom is a good question. Ever wonder why Paul did not write to the Corinthian elders instead of to the whole church to exercise discipline?

Can you give a specific place in Corinthians that you are thinking of? I immediately went to 1 Cor. 5. There the man in sin does not seem to be the leader or a leader. That's my understanding. sorry i could not be of further help.

The leadership at Harvest House is exemplary. Anyone who has been in the Christian publishing industry for years knows that they have incredible integrity. Bob Hawkins Jr is a godly man who is willing to do what is right at great expense to himself and his team.

Clicker

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"